Dark Matter excuse number 3

[Alan Folmsbee]

The scale of a galaxy is limited to what we have observed. They do not get bigger with spiral shapes with unlimited sizes. That is due to the fluid dynamics of the 4D continuum. The viscosity of space-time already has revealed mass to be an area of square meters. Gravitational acceleration has a long history in our galaxy and that has given us the scale of The Momentum of Free Space p.

p = 7*10^-37 meter^3/second

The long-term stretching of space into our galaxy simultaneously miniaturizes our perspective and detaches intergalactic space from galactic space. The viscosity at the big scale outside a galaxy allows a shear in space and a change in the radial centripetal force.

Conclusion

Gravity is not modified to explain away the dark matter illusion, centripetal force is modified by the shear and viscosity at supragalactic scales. Inertia is different at the big scale, at the boundary. No particles are needed except the protons and neutrons that expand our universe.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Why not a "fall gravity" and true
centrifugal instead of centripetal?

The idea of a fall gravity is that,
in opposition to the usual notion
of pull gravity (but with the same
classical results and formulas),
that gravity or gravific force is everywhere and rather occluded
by other massive bodies than
drawn by other massive bodies,
so massive bodies really fall
together with the same result as if
they pull together (and no need for
massive bodies to continually
radiate each some force field of
gravity.

This continues with uniting this
same description with the strong
nuclear force and mediating that
with charge, this unifying the forces
of physics.

[Alan Folmsbee]

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 2:42:29 PM UTC-10, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

"Why not a "fall gravity" and true 
centrifugal instead of centripetal? "

I will define my terms more clearly. Centrifugal force is gravity in the case of a star circling a galaxy. It goes faster at the rim than expected for the bright stars. The shear of space due to viscosity changes the angle for inertia. Instead of radial inertia equaling gravity, inertia at a 45 degree angle away from radial will propel the star around the galaxy. At a large scale this vectored inertia is like magnetism confining some ions.

Fall gravity has some good characteristics. You say it could shadow some gravity? Then clumps of galactic arms could polarize the movements around the galaxy.

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

On 26/07/16 07:10, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
>
> p = 7*10^-37 meter^3/second
>

It's dangerous to count! :)

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Most recent results on dark matter: "No".

The galaxies could have been spinning
long before star formation, the whole
entire giant frame.

As well there could be effects of "solar
pressure" between systems where the gravity,
as it were, of the entire system already
was in a balance before the dust swept
into the critical points and formed stars.
At the borders of those frames the net
gravity would be about zero and solar
pressure, as it were, would be significantly
stronger in comparison than when it was in
the gravity well.

A notion of fall gravity or the LeSage-ian
is not so unusual, though instead of an ether
of corpuscles that push everywhere, ("fall
gravity" as not of massive bodies but also
of them) instead the notion here has the origin
is everywhere (i.e., for each inertial frame)
and everything is always falling to it.

Then mass defines inertia then that so happens
to interact with a constant uniform gravific
field everywhere.

I realize this is simplistic and somewhat under-
informed, but it's a mathematical approach.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/25/2016 8:57 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> I will define my terms more clearly. Centrifugal force is gravity in the case of a star circling a galaxy.

Alan, why are you using an existing term with a definition you invented?
Physics is not science fiction, you know.

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Alan Folmsbee]

Sorry, I wrote that backwards. I was wrong. Thank you for highlighting my mistake. Cancel any cetrefugal related terms.
Alan